Paid family leave's secret weapon: men

On Paid Family Leave

Jeremy Adam Smith

Published
4:00 am PST, Thursday, February 3, 2011

President Obama's 2011 budget originally proposed $50 million in grants to help states establish paid family-leave programs like the one pioneered here in California. This predictably drew fire from right-wing organizations.

"That longtime feminist goal would be very costly to small business and result in a loss of jobs," argued Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum in its newsletter, echoing familiar Republican talking points.

They went further: Lumping paid family leave with federal programs fighting violence and discrimination against women, the Eagle Forum called the budget "feminist pork" that promotes an "anti-male, anti-marriage ideology."

Is paid family leave bad for business, men and marriage, as many Republicans suggest? The answer turns out to be no. A new survey of California employers and employees reveals the state's program isn't just good for business - it's also good for guys and their marriages.

I don't need a study to tell me that - it's something I discovered for myself. California's leave program - which grants six weeks of partial wage replacement for workers to care for newborns or ill family members - went into effect on July 1, 2004. My son was born two weeks later.

Taking six weeks of leave meant that my wife and I learned together how to feed and bathe our baby, change his diapers and rock him to sleep. That precious time set a pattern of growing confidence and involvement for me: In the years that followed, I was the one who saw my son's first steps, coaxed him into napping on his own and taught him to ride a bike - experiences often not available to earlier generations of fathers whose job on the birth of a child was restricted to handing out cigars.

The new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, titled "Leaves That Pay," says that I'm not alone: Their survey finds that 91 percent of working-class employees who used paid leave found it had a positive effect on their ability to care for their babies. The report also finds that the number of men taking paid family leave has risen steadily since the program was introduced - and the amount of time they're taking for bonding with babies has increased by almost 10 percent.

The report does contain a revelation that might shock Republicans who oppose President Obama's efforts to extend paid leave to all 50 states: According to 253 employers surveyed, California's paid family leave had no or very minimal impact on their business operations. In fact, 89 percent of employers say the program had no or positive effect on productivity; 96 percent claim the program reduced employee turnover; 99 percent say it improved morale.

Six years after launching paid family leave in California, the results are in, and the benefits are clear. On a national level, however, only 7 percent of American men, and about half of women, have access to paid leave on the birth of a child.

In discussions with men around the country, I have heard heartbreaking stories about how they didn't get any parental leave at all. It's critical that these voices are part of the paid family leave debate - for the right has been successful in its effort to block Obama's $50 million for state-level programs. As the proposal moved through the budget process, it was cut to $10 million - and is now frozen by congressional gridlock.

What can we do to break the gridlock and help spread paid family leave beyond California? As the report on California's paid leave reveals, a new generation of dads is discovering that public policy can help them to be the fathers that they want to be - and in the national fight for paid family leave, their stories just might be the secret weapons.